The 9 people arrested should have been so without the presence of Sky cameras & a Charlton official present.
If they are found guilty, then CAFC could've released a statement detailing the nature of the chants & that they won't be tolerated, clearly giving an example to other fans.
I think dragging cameras & officials to outside someones home when they haven't been proven guilty is wrong.
The 9 people arrested should have been so without the presence of Sky cameras & a Charlton official present.
If they are found guilty, then CAFC could've released a statement detailing the nature of the chants & that they won't be tolerated, clearly giving an example to other fans.
I think dragging cameras & officials to outside someones home when they haven't been proven guilty is wrong.
That's a point of view but what if the arrests are reported anyway and the Charlton connection is made in the media.
The "nine Charlton fans arrested for racially offensive chanting" stories are still on the radio and in the press even if not shown on SSN
The media would be asking for comments from the Club and possibly from Chris Powell at press conferences. By stating their view upfront the Club makes its position clear and distances itself from the alleged offences. At the same time it protects its reputation and stops other speculation in the media. It also, as Grapevine points out, re-assures the people who work for the Club.
The 9 people arrested should have been so without the presence of Sky cameras & a Charlton official present.
If they are found guilty, then CAFC could've released a statement detailing the nature of the chants & that they won't be tolerated, clearly giving an example to other fans.
I think dragging cameras & officials to outside someones home when they haven't been proven guilty is wrong.
Agree but would go as far to say that even before found guilty the club could give a statement saying should they be found guilty life ban etc.
The same way that you wouldnt expect club officials to turn up on camera at the houses of those arrested on rape allegations for example when there is no public evidence that they are more than allegations.
As for the not naming im sure the neighbours of those arrested have put 2 and 2 together seeing them on sky. If guilty i couldnt care less but if innocent then mud could stick and its out of order....same way printing names in newspapers is bang out of order before charges made or cases heard for the other incident.
If the neighbours could see them on sky sports news, they could probably see them out the window.
This happens all the time. Any semi high profile case we almost always know the names of those "helping police with inquiries" or charged. We knew about Rednapp months and months ago. Why are these guys supposed to be treated any different?
Jints said:If the neighbours could see them on sky sports news, they could probably see them out the window.
This happens all the time. Any semi high profile case we almost always know the names of those "helping police with inquiries" or charged. We knew about Rednapp months and months ago. Why are these guys supposed to be treated any different?
Just because it happens all the time doesnt make it right. It shouldnt be allowed to happen before any charges are brought and proved against anyone as in Redknapps case and the one with our player.
Look at that poor old man who got framed by the paper when the girl got killed last year...he was a right oddball looking fella and the media had him nailed on as guilty but turned out to be her lunatic dutch neighbour. Bang out of order as probably ruins peoples lives with the whole finger pointing and smoke without fire stuff that no doubt follows.
RCT, I kinda of agree with you especially about that guy (but at least we don't have perpwalks like in the States). That said there are some pretty good policing reasons for identifying people. Someone might get accused of rape and a lot of other victims come forward when they see his face etc.
I don't like the grandstanding of having TV cameras at arrests.
One thing I do know is that the police invited Sky to the arrests and not the club. The club then had to decide whether to keep its distance or be proactive in setting out its position. Whatever your view on that, it's barking mad to imagine the club wanted to encourage the coverage.
One thing I do know is that the police invited Sky to the arrests and not the club. The club then had to decide whether to keep its distance or be proactive in setting out its position. Whatever your view on that, it's barking mad to imagine the club wanted to encourage the coverage.
Shame you edited the piece you put on the other Charlton site where you said
"Jurisprudence is the science and philosophy of law, basically the logic by which we are governed. This logic seems to have passed our dear club by and political correctness has taken its place, aided and abetted by that well known clown Rick Everett, club communications manager and Labour Party candidate. I smell hypocrisy and yet again he is at the heart of it."
And on another thread about the arrests for alleged racial offensive singing you posted
"Stephen Kavanagh has been nothing but trouble since he arrived but, this is too far. I’d like to see some sort of protest against the clubs involvement. I’d also like to know what is supposed to have been sung and who pointed the finger.
It is interesting looking at other boards around the country there is a lot of support for the lads but not on our own Charlton Life. Those middle class tossers could well stop me going."
Seems as well as being factually wrong about Rick's role at the Club you decided that what you could get away with posting among "friends" on that other site had to be toned down for a place where RicK Everitt and other club employees are likely to read it.
And that everyone on Charlton Life is a middle class tosser. Welcome aboard Loco.
Oh Henry, thou doust protest too much. None of the above addresses the cetral isssue does it? No not the
Shame you edited the piece you put on the other Charlton site where you said
"Jurisprudence is the science and philosophy of law, basically the logic by which we are governed. This logic seems to have passed our dear club by and political correctness has taken its place, aided and abetted by that well known clown Rick Everett, club communications manager and Labour Party candidate. I smell hypocrisy and yet again he is at the heart of it."
And on another thread about the arrests for alleged racial offensive singing you posted
"Stephen Kavanagh has been nothing but trouble since he arrived but, this is too far. I’d like to see some sort of protest against the clubs involvement. I’d also like to know what is supposed to have been sung and who pointed the finger.
It is interesting looking at other boards around the country there is a lot of support for the lads but not on our own Charlton Life. Those middle class tossers could well stop me going."
Seems as well as being factually wrong about Rick's role at the Club you decided that what you could get away with posting among "friends" on that other site had to be toned down for a place where RicK Everitt and other club employees are likely to read it.
And that everyone on Charlton Life is a middle class tosser. Welcome aboard Loco.
Not exactly a secret site is it? After all many supporters use it and most are aware that it is exists. Users of the site are all aware that it is “monitored”. It is open, no password required. I use the same Monika there as here and the same argument albeit written to a different audience. To suggest it’s a surprise is wide of the mark.
This is all a distraction though so I suggest if you wish to debate that particular issue you debate it where it was posted.
The central question is do we wish to punish people before a court has decided guilt or innocence? The presumption of innocence is one of the pillars of our legal system and seems to be being eroded. Obviously that is outwith the remit of this board in the general sense but where it is relevant here is the clubs recent actions. The clubs role in the events first described does require explanation if nothing else. The viewpoint being a minority or otherwise matters not, majority does not engender correctness or otherwise. That is especially true where the tactic to discredit the question and not to seek an analysis of the logic.
The FA recently relived relieved JT of his role of England captain prior to a trial, again here we see that someone has been punished for being accused. I’m no fan of JT or his past actions but, you have to see through that and look at what is actually happening. Teachers are suspended if an accusation arises regarding their conduct with children, I don’t think anyone could argue that that is not a proper course of action albeit one that causes much distress to the accused. The FA could have suspended JT from his role if they felt his incumbency would distract or inhibit the team but, no they just removed him resulting in the loss of our the manger.
It seems that a mere accusation of racism will result in the loss of something or other, no call to account is required and surely there is potential for abuse. Therefore we must stop presumption of guilt and the programme notes do presume guilt in my opinion (despite the weasel words).
With regard to the player, the publication of the accusation and his naming I say this; it is simply not adequate for a 21st century society to have such weak protection of anonymity in these cases, everyone should have a right to it. Again this is really not the remit of this board in the general sense but, I would like to reiterate that the clubs actions in this case are entirely correct in my opinion.
Surely then we can see that involvement in door stepping the nine was wrong, we learn that the club were aware of Sky TV’s involvement and still took part.
Remember this guy? I bet you do, apart from being guilty of having one of the worst comb over’s in history he was entirely innocent. His life was completely turned upside down because he was suspected by the police of involvement in a murder and the publication of that fact.
But the fans idents haven't been made public! And I don't remember reading/hearing anywhere the club saying they will ban anyine Suspectd iof Racism. So not quite sure arguing about being treated badly comes into it. You can argue everyone should have anonimity atr least until charged, but supressing the fact anything has happened at all is also not right.
But the fans idents haven't been made public! And I don't remember reading/hearing anywhere the club saying they will ban anyine Suspectd iof Racism. So not quite sure arguing about being treated badly comes into it. You can argue everyone should have anonimity atr least until charged, but supressing the fact anything has happened at all is also not right.
Putting them on TV is not making them public? Are you drunk?
Comments
And why?
The 9 people arrested should have been so without the presence of Sky cameras & a Charlton official present.
If they are found guilty, then CAFC could've released a statement detailing the nature of the chants & that they won't be tolerated, clearly giving an example to other fans.
I think dragging cameras & officials to outside someones home when they haven't been proven guilty is wrong.
That's a point of view but what if the arrests are reported anyway and the Charlton connection is made in the media.
The "nine Charlton fans arrested for racially offensive chanting" stories are still on the radio and in the press even if not shown on SSN
The media would be asking for comments from the Club and possibly from Chris Powell at press conferences. By stating their view upfront the Club makes its position clear and distances itself from the alleged offences. At the same time it protects its reputation and stops other speculation in the media. It also, as Grapevine points out, re-assures the people who work for the Club.
The same way that you wouldnt expect club officials to turn up on camera at the houses of those arrested on rape allegations for example when there is no public evidence that they are more than allegations.
As for the not naming im sure the neighbours of those arrested have put 2 and 2 together seeing them on sky. If guilty i couldnt care less but if innocent then mud could stick and its out of order....same way printing names in newspapers is bang out of order before charges made or cases heard for the other incident.
This happens all the time. Any semi high profile case we almost always know the names of those "helping police with inquiries" or charged. We knew about Rednapp months and months ago. Why are these guys supposed to be treated any different?
Just because it happens all the time doesnt make it right. It shouldnt be allowed to happen before any charges are brought and proved against anyone as in Redknapps case and the one with our player.
Look at that poor old man who got framed by the paper when the girl got killed last year...he was a right oddball looking fella and the media had him nailed on as guilty but turned out to be her lunatic dutch neighbour. Bang out of order as probably ruins peoples lives with the whole finger pointing and smoke without fire stuff that no doubt follows.
Regarding the player in question, no comment from me until the case has been settled.
I don't like the grandstanding of having TV cameras at arrests.
I got blisters on the palm of my hand, therefore I must be working class?
Just wow.
This is all a distraction though so I suggest if you wish to debate that particular issue you debate it where it was posted.
The FA recently relived relieved JT of his role of England captain prior to a trial, again here we see that someone has been punished for being accused. I’m no fan of JT or his past actions but, you have to see through that and look at what is actually happening. Teachers are suspended if an accusation arises regarding their conduct with children, I don’t think anyone could argue that that is not a proper course of action albeit one that causes much distress to the accused. The FA could have suspended JT from his role if they felt his incumbency would distract or inhibit the team but, no they just removed him resulting in the loss of our the manger.
It seems that a mere accusation of racism will result in the loss of something or other, no call to account is required and surely there is potential for abuse. Therefore we must stop presumption of guilt and the programme notes do presume guilt in my opinion (despite the weasel words).
With regard to the player, the publication of the accusation and his naming I say this; it is simply not adequate for a 21st century society to have such weak protection of anonymity in these cases, everyone should have a right to it. Again this is really not the remit of this board in the general sense but, I would like to reiterate that the clubs actions in this case are entirely correct in my opinion.
Surely then we can see that involvement in door stepping the nine was wrong, we learn that the club were aware of Sky TV’s involvement and still took part.
Remember this guy? I bet you do, apart from being guilty of having one of the worst comb over’s in history he was entirely innocent. His life was completely turned upside down because he was suspected by the police of involvement in a murder and the publication of that fact.
But the fans idents haven't been made public!
And I don't remember reading/hearing anywhere the club saying they will ban anyine Suspectd iof Racism. So not quite sure arguing about being treated badly comes into it. You can argue everyone should have anonimity atr least until charged, but supressing the fact anything has happened at all is also not right.